The article critically examines the use of generative AI, particularly OpenAI's ChatGPT, in legal research, highlighting its limitations and failures. While ChatGPT's new "deep research" feature provided a solid summary of recent court rulings on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, it neglected significant decisions and broader interpretations essential for a full understanding. The shortcomings reflect ongoing struggles of AI in producing reliable legal insights, emphasizing the necessity of human expertise in interpreting intricate legal matters.
ChatGPT’s new "deep research" feature showed promise by summarizing federal court rulings accurately, but it missed broader legal context and important decisions.
Legal research with generative AI can lead to misinformation, evidenced by past AI failures that resulted in sanctions for lawyers citing fabricated cases.
The evolving interpretation of Section 230 by judges underscores the necessity for human expertise to capture nuances that AI might overlook in legal contexts.
Despite its sophisticated capabilities, tools like ChatGPT still fall short in comprehensively addressing complex legal topics when compared to knowledgeable experts.
Collection
[
|
...
]